Comments on: The Case for Videotaping Police Interrogationshttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/
It rankles me when somebody tries to tell somebody what to do.Thu, 29 Jan 2015 14:59:44 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Coreyhttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-199338
Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:25:50 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-199338For an excellent even handed account of interrogation, read David Simon’s (yeah, the guy who did the Wire) Homicide. Post Miranda, Police investigators have become skilled at using the various consent forms as props in a confidence game to persuade defendants to waive their 5th amendment privilege. Simon covers it as well as any of the social scientists (e.g,. Richard Leo) who study this stuff.
]]>By: albatrosshttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-198204
Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:52:27 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-198204I am curious. Is there some good argument for not videotaping police questioning/interrogations? Given the cost of videotaping equipment, I can’t seem to think of a good reason to argue against it at all. Am I missing something? Otherwise, it looks a whole lot like some bureaucrat arguing against having auditors allowed to look at his agency’s books–he’s trying to get away with something.
]]>By: David Nieporenthttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-197109
Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:59:18 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-197109 If we hadn’t discovered and verified the suspect’s alibi — or if we hadn’t recorded the interrogation — she probably would have been convicted of first-degree murder and would be in prison today. The true perpetrator of the crime was never identified, partly because the investigation was derailed when we focused on an innocent person.

Kudos to the cop for actually paying attention to the alibi; too many LEOs/prosecutors will simply ignore contrary evidence once they “know” their target is guilty. They’ll insist that since their belief can’t be wrong, the evidence must be.

]]>By: Andrewhttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196838
Tue, 28 Oct 2008 06:12:30 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196838There needs to be some sort of Miranda warning about talking to or cooperating with police. Most people don’t understand they they do not have to submit to an interrogation – oh sorry – “interview”. They also don’t know that any competent lawyer would tell you not to submit to an interrogation – damn, sorry “interview” – under any circumstances.
]]>By: David McElroyhttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196822
Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:30:10 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196822For a fascinating and enlightening explanation of why false confessions happen (and why police believe them in spite of all evidence to the contrary), I recommend a book called, “Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.” There’s only one chapter that deals specifically with police work, but the whole book is really worth reading and thinking about. It deals with the psychology behind how humans deal with cognitive dissonance in ways that make us truly believe things that absolutely never happened.

When I was a newspaper reporter, I learned that eyewitness accounts of things were rarely accurate. Sometimes, they were reasonable guides to some of what happened, but different witnesses would have very different stories. Each person would be truly upset at how wrong the OTHER witnesses could be. It’s amazing how this basic human tendency affects our politics, romances, justice system and on and on and on.

]]>By: Leehttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196711
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:14:17 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196711They also use the tactic of asking if the recording has audio, and when you foolishly answer the cop YES, they charge you with federal wiretapping. It’s BS, but it’s what they do.
]]>By: Libertarian Machttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196708
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:56:08 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196708Thats so true Big Boy. I once tried to video a female state trooper making a traffic stop. When she saw my cell phone pointed at her she screamed “hey what are you recording over there” and started moving in my direction. I, ofcourse cowared, closed the flip and moved on. Not so much afraid of an arrest but of losing my phone. Incidentally, I was only recording her because she was the best looking cop I had ever seen.
]]>By: Big Boyhttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196669
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:29:53 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196669The new trend is to arrest anyone videotaping police activity (even if done in a public place and open to the view of dozens) for “disturbing the peace” of failing to obey an order to stop filming public servants conducting public business in a public place. Usually the case is dropped AFTER the cameras and cell phones are seized and the offending images “disappear” due to “spurious electrical currents” in the squad car.

Why?

Because the police can then “claim” that a dozen unrelated people with no motive to lie ARE doing just that so long as there is no SURVIVING audio or video record of the incident.

Secrecy always protects the liers.

]]>By: TBoneJoneshttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196645
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:32:21 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196645Of course police don’t want things video taped. It makes it impossible for them to lie. San Diego is on of the largest cities in the US. Federal grants would be available if Law Enforcement wanted patrol video systems in the vehicles. Even if they weren’t I don’t think local citizens would have any problem with the expenditure
given the additional protection it would offer police against false claims etc. So, why don’t San Diego patrol vehicles have video systems? All I can imagine is it would make it impossible for cut and paste statements like “subject consented to search of their vehicle” or”subject made a suspicious movement” or “during a cursory weapons search” blah blah blah to be added to arrest reports.
]]>By: Mister DNAhttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196631
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:57 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196631I agree with SJE. Not only does videotaping interrogations protect suspects, it protects cops, as well. But I seriously doubt many cops are concerned about protecting suspects.

I remember watching something on Court TV about the 1991 Buddhist Temple Massacre in Arizona. Not only did an innocent person confess to that crime (after being fed details of the crime by detectives), the actual culprit had committed a murder in another county in which yet another person had confessed.

]]>By: jwhhttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196629
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:01:11 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196629No, Max, I have no recollection of that…….but what about waterboarding……..Rumsfeld must be behind this somewhere……and W, too.
]]>By: libarbarianhttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196613
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:16:03 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196613They’re all guilty of something.
Everyone is guilty of something.

]]>By: Frank N Steinhttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196512
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:50:20 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196512These things help expose the lie that government is by and for “the people”. If in fact we were in charge, there would be no question that we could enact measures to ensure those who we pay to perform their government-monopolized duties are doing them properly. Basic competency and professionalism is an expectation and requirement for continued employment in most market-based situations. It’s the punchline to a joke when it concerns civil “servants” and the like (public school teachers, etc).
]]>By: Maxhttp://www.theagitator.com/2008/10/27/the-case-for-videotaping-police-interrogations/comment-page-1/#comment-196477
Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:26:53 +0000http://www.theagitator.com/?p=10869#comment-196477You’ll remember that Barack Obama, as a state senator in Illinois, brought a bill to videotape interrogations to the senate floor and it passed overwhelmingly. Now there’s a guy with respect for civil liberties.
]]>